Once in a great while I'll find something in a Christian publication that I agree with. Christianity Today for July/August 2018 has an article "The Bible's Slowness" by Sandra McCracken, and "Holy Inefficiency" by Christina Crook. Here is one of her websites encouraging others to feel the joy of missing out. Well said.
While the change must be to some extent arbitrary, the adult-kiddies need to start paying attention to the down-side of modern technology, instead of just gobbling it up like starving teenagers at a pizza party.
Missing out on most of the online buzz would probably do you a lot of good. How did we ever survive in the world when we weren't able to be connected to each other 24/7?
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Cold Case Christianity: Using the law to destroy J. Warner Wallace's case for Mark's reliability
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
First, the gospels are 2,000 years old, thus requiring analysis of the "ancient documents" rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 803 (16): (of course, the rule was never meant to apply to documents that are 2,000 years old, but Wallace is stuck with that stupid application of the law since he wants to evaluate the gospels using modern American jurisprudence):
From Eusebius, Church History, book 6, ch. 14:
Fourth, Mark fails the "was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be" criteria, since provenance of the manuscripts earliest Mark comes from (Vaticanus, Siniaticus) are virtually unknown, and Mark's alleged traveling all over from Rome to Egypt would require the ridiculous result that this criteria is satisfied as long as a copy of Mark was found somewhere within a 3,000 mile radius!
Furthermore, the tradition is that Mark gave the original to the church in Rome (a city having nothing to do with Siniaticus or Vaticanus). Siniaticus was found in Saint Catherine's Monastery which is in Egypt, 1,500 miles away from Rome. Vaticanus obviously comes from the Vatican library, but that only means that's where is was discovered. But the provenance and early history of the codex is uncertain, see Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 109 (from wikipedia). See also same here.
Fifth, even if Mark passed the ancient documents rule, the fact that it is allegedly Mark quoting Peter means it is still classic hearsay, and if no exception allowing it can be found, it remains inadmissible hearsay. Contrary to popular belief, demonstrating the authenticity of the document doesn't end the analysis, the document must still conform with the rules allowing hearsay, or the document must remain inadmissible:
Worse, Christian scholars generally agree that Mark's gospel content includes more than merely "what Peter preached", which therefore screws up any hope Wallace had to pretend that only Peter is being represented in Mark's gospel. From my prior article:
And while I espouse Markan priority, the Christians who think Mark copied from Matthew (Matthean priority) make it even more difficult to pinpoint what in Mark's gospel is from Mark, from Peter, from Matthew, or from other sources.
It is not for nothing that I call Wallace's use of modern rules of evidence on the gospels, a "sales gimmick". That's truly all that it is. He is capitalizing on Christians who don't know jack shit about historiography or legal rules of evidence, and upon Christians who are utterly addicted to their computer.
Wallace continues:
Since more than enough has been done here to destroy Wallace's bullshit legal case for Mark's authenticity, there is no need to reply to the rest of his article.
Well Mr. Wallace: Mark's not being an eyewitness would make his own gospel "hearsay" in any court of law. Since you are so big on the use-American-court-rules-of-evidence-on-the-gospels gimmick, you might begin by explaining how you figure the jury could ever be allowed to see Mark's gospel:The authorship of Mark’s Gospel is of great importance to those of us making a case for the reliability of the New Testament. Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts. How did Mark get his information about Jesus?
First, the gospels are 2,000 years old, thus requiring analysis of the "ancient documents" rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 803 (16): (of course, the rule was never meant to apply to documents that are 2,000 years old, but Wallace is stuck with that stupid application of the law since he wants to evaluate the gospels using modern American jurisprudence):
(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.Second, the evidence rules tell us how "authenticity" is to be established, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8):
Third, Mark doesn't pass the "condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity" criteria.(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data Compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.
The requirement that the document be free of suspicion relates not to the content of the document, but rather to whether the document is what it purports to be, and the issue falls within the trial court's discretion. United States v. Firishchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Kairys, 782 F.2d 1374, 1379 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Kalymon, 541 F.3d 624, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2008). "[T]he mere recitation of the contents of documents does not authenticate them or provide for their admissibility." Firishchak, 468 F.3d at 1021.
From Eusebius, Church History, book 6, ch. 14:
Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Marks had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.If the person who is the purported source behind Mark refused to encourage the writing, then it doesn't matter why; from historian's perspective the notion that Peter thought Mark got some of the Petrine preaching wrong must remain forever among the possibilities. The bar Mark must meet is not "reasonable", but "no suspicion". Unless fundamentalists suddenly discover that Eusebius isn't as reliable as they wished (a position that itself opens doors to justified gospel authorship skepticism that they wish to remain closed), then Clement's remark here passes the historical criteria of embarrassment, and thus has greater claim to reliable history than any laudatory statement about Mark.
Fourth, Mark fails the "was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be" criteria, since provenance of the manuscripts earliest Mark comes from (Vaticanus, Siniaticus) are virtually unknown, and Mark's alleged traveling all over from Rome to Egypt would require the ridiculous result that this criteria is satisfied as long as a copy of Mark was found somewhere within a 3,000 mile radius!
Furthermore, the tradition is that Mark gave the original to the church in Rome (a city having nothing to do with Siniaticus or Vaticanus). Siniaticus was found in Saint Catherine's Monastery which is in Egypt, 1,500 miles away from Rome. Vaticanus obviously comes from the Vatican library, but that only means that's where is was discovered. But the provenance and early history of the codex is uncertain, see Aland, Kurt; Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 109 (from wikipedia). See also same here.
Fifth, even if Mark passed the ancient documents rule, the fact that it is allegedly Mark quoting Peter means it is still classic hearsay, and if no exception allowing it can be found, it remains inadmissible hearsay. Contrary to popular belief, demonstrating the authenticity of the document doesn't end the analysis, the document must still conform with the rules allowing hearsay, or the document must remain inadmissible:
Even if a document qualifies as ancient under Rule 803(16), other hearsay exceptions must be used to render each individual layer of hearsay admissible. This interpretation best reconciles the underlying justifications of Rule 803(16) with the limitations of Rule 805."). See also New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 888 F.2d 646, 650 (10th Cir. 1989) (upholding exclusion of statements reported in newspaper article as inadmissible hearsay). As previously stated, the newspaper articles fall within the exception for ancient documents. However, as to the statements of other declarants (apart from the author), Ms. Murphy has not shown that any other hearsay exception applies. Accordingly, the Motion in Limine is granted, in part, with regard to portions of the newspaper articles attributable to declarants other than the author.
Worse, Christian scholars generally agree that Mark's gospel content includes more than merely "what Peter preached", which therefore screws up any hope Wallace had to pretend that only Peter is being represented in Mark's gospel. From my prior article:
Without doubt a close examination of Mark’s material will show that the evangelist did not simply write his Gospel based on his notes or memory of Peter’s teachings. The amazing similarity in language, style, and form of the Synoptic tradition between the Markan and non-Markan materials of Matthew and Luke (cf. John’s Gospel) hardly suggests that Mark’s materials were shaped by one man, be he either Peter or Mark.Even if Mark passed the ancient documents rule and all hearsay objections, what exactly in it that goes back to Mark, to Peter, to somebody's idea of a combination of both, or to otherwise unknown sources, is impossible to determine.
And while I espouse Markan priority, the Christians who think Mark copied from Matthew (Matthean priority) make it even more difficult to pinpoint what in Mark's gospel is from Mark, from Peter, from Matthew, or from other sources.
It is not for nothing that I call Wallace's use of modern rules of evidence on the gospels, a "sales gimmick". That's truly all that it is. He is capitalizing on Christians who don't know jack shit about historiography or legal rules of evidence, and upon Christians who are utterly addicted to their computer.
Wallace continues:
Trustworthy? Peter denied Christ several times after having allegedly seen him do real miracles to amazed crowds for three years, then he became a Judaizer (Galatians 2:12-14, "...how is is that you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews?")Why should we consider his information to be reliable? There are several good reasons to believe Peter is the trustworthy source of information for Mark, beginning with the historical attributions of the early Church Fathers who affirm the relationship Mark and Peter had in the 1st Century.
Doesn't matter, if the argument were that easy, you wouldn't find legitimate Christian scholars like Guelich, supra, scoffing at the notion that Peter is Mark's only source.Beyond this, however, there are additional evidences within Mark’s text supporting the claim Peter (Mark’s mentor in Rome) is the source for Mark’s information.
I’ve described the evidential case in much more detail in Cold-Case Christianity, but this brief summary may be helpful:
The Writing Style Is Consistent With Mark’s BackgroundThe traditional view recognizes Mark as a Palestinian Jew who wrote his Gospel using Peter as his source. Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a writing style and literary syntax exposing the author’s first language as something other than Greek. In fact, the writing style seems to indicate the author’s first language was probably a Semitic language such as Aramaic. This would be consistent with the idea Mark, a Palestinian Jew (who most likely spoke Aramaic) was the author of the Gospel. In addition to this, the Gospel of Mark includes a number of vivid and tangential details unnecessary to the narrative, but consistent with observations of an eyewitness to the events. This would indicate the author had access to an eyewitness such as Peter.
But there is also evidence against Peter's being a source is Mark's resurrection appearance narrative.
First, Acts 1:1-3 has a risen Christ appearing to the apostles IN JERUSALEM over a period of 40 days, teaching things concerning the kingdom of God:
NAU Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3 NAU)
Second, nothing in Mark's resurrection appearance narrative expresses or implies any such thing as 40 days of resurrection appearances in Jerusalem:
9 Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
10 She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.
11 When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it.
12 After that, He appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.
13 They went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.
14 Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed . [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. (Mk. 16:9-20 NAU)
Had Peter experienced the 40-day Jerusalem appearances of Christ, we'd expect both that he'd relay the details to Mark, and that Mark would find the risen Christ's teachings on the kingdom of heaven equally as important, if not more so, than the same teachings Christ gave before the crucifixion.
"Impeachment by omission" is a recognized means of challenging a witness's credibility. "A statement from which there has been omitted a material assertion that would normally have been made and which is presently testified to may be considered a prior inconsistent statement." State v. Provet, 133 N.J.Super. 432, 437, 337 A.2d 374 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 68 N.J. 174, 343 A.2d 462 (1975); see also Silva, supra, 131 N.J. at 444-45, 621 A.2d 17; State v. Marks, 201 N.J.Super. 514, 531-32, 493 A.2d 596 (App. Div.1985), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 393, 508 A.2d 253 (1986). This principle is widely accepted. Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 239, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2129, 65 L.Ed.2d 86, 95 (1980) ("Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted."); Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 34 (7th 784*784 ed. 2013) ("[I]f the prior statement omits a material fact presently testified to and it would have been natural to mention that fact in the prior statement, the statement is sufficiently inconsistent."); 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 1042 (Chadbourn rev. 1970) ("A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the non-existence of the fact.")
Wallace continues:
The Outline of the Gospel Is Consistent With Peter’s OutlinePapias maintained the Gospel of Mark was simply a collection of Peter’s discourses (or his preaching) as this information was received and recalled by Mark. If we examine the typical preaching style of Peter in the Book of Acts (1:21-22 and Acts 10:37-41 for example) we see Peter always limited his preaching to the public life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Mark’s Gospel omits the private birth narrative and other details of Jesus’ life described in the opening chapters of Luke and Matthew. Mark begins with the preaching of John the Baptist and ends with the resurrection and ascension, paralleling the public preaching of Peter as we see it summarized in the Book of Acts.
Unfortunately, none of the apostles in Acts merely quote Jesus verbatim and recall his specific miracles, strongly suggesting that Peter's preaching in Rome was akin to his preaching in Jerusalem. He might make general references to to what Jesus said and did, but nothing nearly so verbatim as what we find in Mark's gospel. You cannot argue that Peter didn't need to be specific about the details with the Jews that he witnessed to in Acts, who knew all about Jesus' public ministry, because Paul's preaching the Gentiles is also recorded in Acts, yet is equally bereft of verbatim quotes of Jesus (Acts 20:35 being merely an exception that proves the rule), consistent with the way he argues his actual points; Paul infamously hardly ever bases his teachings on things Jesus actually said or did, aside from dying for sin and rising from the dead (1st Cor 11:23-25 and 1st Timothy 5:18 are mere exceptions proving the rule). Mark is at best an embellishment of the more generalized message the apostles originally preached.
Thank you for honestly admitting that the gospel authors sometimes attempted to spin an apostle to be more trustworthy than he was, by selectively omitting the more embarrassing episodes. Whoever wrote Mark's gospel had more faith in the public's negative reaction, than in the power of the Holy Spirit to move through historical truth.The Omissions of the Gospel Are Consistent With Peter’s InfluenceThere are many details in the Gospel of Mark consistent with Peter’s special input and influence, including omissions related to events involving Peter. How can Mark be a memoir of Peter if, in fact, the book contains so many omissions of events involving Peter specifically? It’s important to evaluate the entire catalogue of omissions pertaining to Peter to understand the answer here. The vast majority of these omissions involve incidents in which Peter did or said something rash or embarrassing. It’s not surprising these details were omitted by the author who wanted to protect Peter’s standing in the Christian community. Mark was quite discreet in his retelling of the narrative (other Gospel writers who were present at the time do, however, provide details of Peters ‘indiscretions’ in their own accounts). Here are some examples of Petrine Omissions grounded in an effort to minimize embarrassment to Peter (see Cold-Case Christianity for a more detailed explanation of the events summarized here):
Since more than enough has been done here to destroy Wallace's bullshit legal case for Mark's authenticity, there is no need to reply to the rest of his article.
Snip...
We have no idea under what circumstances Mark wrote, so cocky confidence about how Mark would have been subject to criticism and passed with flying colors is overstatement, something Christians apparently need to stay faithful, since the Holy Spirit wouldn't need to overstate the case like that to properly do his job of keeping Christians confident in the gospel.There is sufficient cumulative, circumstantial evidence to conclude Mark did, in fact, form his Gospel from the teaching and preaching of the Apostle Peter. If this is the case, Mark’s Gospel was written within the lifetime of Mark (and likely within the lifetime of Peter). If the Gospel of Mark was written this early, it would have undergone the scrutiny of those who were actually present and could have exposed Mark as a liar:2 Peter 1:16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty
Regardless, the quotation from Eusebius that Peter knew about, but refused to encourage, Mark's literary effort, is reasonably interpreted as Peter's belief that Mark was not reliable, which destroys Wallace's last point.
No, I do not wake up in the middle of the night in frightened shivers, wondering "what if atheism is wrong and hell is real!?"
Friday, August 24, 2018
Cold Case Christianity: The extent to which Mark relies on Peter's preaching can be reasonably doubted
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
That is, if Wallace wishes to continue his farce of evaluating the gospels by the standard of modern American law; a trick he learned from Simon Greenleaf's similar 19th century effort.
Wallace, since you are so hot-to-trot about using American legal principles to evaluate the gospels, your inability to show exactly where Peter's input begins and ends in the Markan material, justifies excluding this "testimony" since we don't know whether something we read therein is from Peter, Mark, or other source Mark used, or something added by a later redactor.
That later redactors can screw things up sufficiently to make it difficult to figure out what the original said, is clear from the controversy over the "long ending" of Mark. It is likely a forgery, but it still managed to infect most of the manuscripts in a way sufficiently thorough as to enable a minority of Christian scholars today to make a cause for their authenticity that would sound convincing to somebody not already familiar with the evidence..
If you were being prosecuted for murder on the basis of a written affidavit of a now-dead person, whose various assertions about you and your crime were legitimately subject to the level of authorship and source controversy now plaguing Mark's gospel, you'd be screaming your head off that such affidavit is more prejudicial than probative for its tendency to confuse the jury on who exactly is making the assertions. You'd be making a motion to have such affidavit rendered inadmissible.
Assuming, as most Christian scholars do, that Matthew used Mark as a source, why is Matthew's version of Peter's confession and Jesus' answer thereto, far longer than Mark's account?
What's more likely?
That Peter also said "the son of the living God" part, yet Mark knowingly "chose to exclude" that part?
That Jesus replied with all the commentary seen in Matthew's account, but that Mark, knowing that was Jesus' full reply, knowingly "chose to exclude" this?
a) Peter would keep the Acts 1:3 resurrection appearances from Mark or
b) that Mark would know of them but choose to avoid mentioning them.
Mark's allegedly living in Jerusalem would make it reasonable to suspect that, if Acts 1:3 is telling the truth, Mark would both know about AND desire to mention these Jerusalem resurrection appearances.
Read any modern commentary on Mark written by a Christian scholar. Christians are also having problems with the link between Mark and Peter. Here's one evangelical Christian scholar who scoffs at the idea that Peter was the primary source of Mark:The authorship of the New Testament Gospels has become a point of contention for many skeptics who deny the traditional attributions of Mark, Matthew or John.
Without doubt a close examination of Mark’s material will show that the evangelist did not simply write his Gospel based on his notes or memory of Peter’s teachings. The amazing similarity in language, style, and form of the Synoptic tradition between the Markan and non-Markan materials of Matthew and Luke (cf. John’s Gospel) hardly suggests that Mark’s materials were shaped by one man, be he either Peter or Mark.With that kind of admission, the extent to which any particular passage in Mark constitutes a quotation from Peter is well-nigh impossible to resolve, thus justifying the skeptic to declare Mark's gospel inadmissible.
That is, if Wallace wishes to continue his farce of evaluating the gospels by the standard of modern American law; a trick he learned from Simon Greenleaf's similar 19th century effort.
Wallace, since you are so hot-to-trot about using American legal principles to evaluate the gospels, your inability to show exactly where Peter's input begins and ends in the Markan material, justifies excluding this "testimony" since we don't know whether something we read therein is from Peter, Mark, or other source Mark used, or something added by a later redactor.
That later redactors can screw things up sufficiently to make it difficult to figure out what the original said, is clear from the controversy over the "long ending" of Mark. It is likely a forgery, but it still managed to infect most of the manuscripts in a way sufficiently thorough as to enable a minority of Christian scholars today to make a cause for their authenticity that would sound convincing to somebody not already familiar with the evidence..
If you were being prosecuted for murder on the basis of a written affidavit of a now-dead person, whose various assertions about you and your crime were legitimately subject to the level of authorship and source controversy now plaguing Mark's gospel, you'd be screaming your head off that such affidavit is more prejudicial than probative for its tendency to confuse the jury on who exactly is making the assertions. You'd be making a motion to have such affidavit rendered inadmissible.
The early church was also unanimous that Matthew and Luke were written before Mark, a position you and most other Christian scholars now disagree with. So apparently, "unanimous church tradition" isn't quite as powerful as you'd like the reader to believe.Mark’s Gospel is of particular importance due to its early dating and relationship to the other Gospels. In spite of the fact Mark isn’t mentioned as an eyewitness in any of the Gospel accounts, there are many good reasons to accept his authorship and regard his Gospel as an accurate record of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. The repeated and unanimous testimony of the early Church describes Mark’s Gospel as an accurate record of Peter’s teaching, captured faithfully by Mark acting as Peter’s scribe.
I don't have a problem with Mark writing the gospel. I have a problem with the idea that any of his specific statements came from the mouth of Peter. Here's one reason why:Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Tertullian attribute the Gospel to Mark, and Mark is also described as the author in the Muratorian Fragment and the Anti-Marcionite Prologues.
Assuming, as most Christian scholars do, that Matthew used Mark as a source, why is Matthew's version of Peter's confession and Jesus' answer thereto, far longer than Mark's account?
|
Mark 8
|
Matthew 16
|
|
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the
villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples,
saying to them,
"Who do people say that I am?"
28 They told Him,
saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the
prophets."
29 And He continued
by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and
said to Him, "You are the Christ."
30 And He warned
them to tell no one about Him.
31 And He began to
teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the
elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three
days rise again.
|
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea
Philippi, He was asking His disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 And they said,
"Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others,
Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them,
"But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter
answered, "You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus said
to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not
reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "I also say
to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the
gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19 "I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth
shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have
been loosed in heaven."
20 Then He warned
the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
21 From that time
Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the
third day.
|
What's more likely?
That Peter also said "the son of the living God" part, yet Mark knowingly "chose to exclude" that part?
That Jesus replied with all the commentary seen in Matthew's account, but that Mark, knowing that was Jesus' full reply, knowingly "chose to exclude" this?
Or that Matthew, the later author, is creatively using fiction to embellish the earlier primitive tradition in ways that enhance the theological significance of this conversation between Peter and Jesus?
Regardless of whether a Christian can show that they themselves can be reasonable to reject this theory, skeptics can be reasonable to conclude that if Mark knew Peter had said "the son of the Living God", Mark would never have "chosen to exclude" this. So the more you credit Mark to Peter, the more you credit Peter with giving Mark an unbelievably shortened version of events.
Before we begin to look at some of the internal evidences for Peter’s connection to the Gospel of Mark, we ought to recognize Peter and Mark’s relationship as it is described in the New Testament. Mark is traditionally considered to be the “John Mark” mentioned as a companion of Paul in the Book of Acts. If this is true, Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and originally fell from favor with Paul when he failed to continue on an evangelistic journey with Paul and Barnabas as a young man. This caused the two older men to separate; Barnabas continued on with Mark and Paul continued with Silas (Acts 15:37-40).Correct, and the fact that Paul disqualified Mark from further ministry due to previously abandoning the mission work, continues to stand as legitimate impeachment against Mark's integrity. That is, Mark may have authored a gospel and become involved in apostolic activities, but he regarded the whole business as something less than exciting or transforming, a bit of apathy we would hardly expect if any apostles he was running around with were doing any of the miracles the book of Acts ascribes to them (Acts 5::15, 8:13, 15:12). Here's the Acts 15 story on why Paul discredited Mark from future mission work:
36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."Wallace continues:
37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
40 But Paul chose Silas and left, being committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. (Acts 15:36-40 NAU)
Which is precisely why Mark's failure to mention the Jerusalem resurrection appearances (Acts 1:1-3) is a silence that screams. Had Mark been a true convert to the faith and was a close personal friend of Peter, it is highly unlikely that eitherMark eventually became a close associate of Peter; this is evident in two pieces of Biblical evidence. First, it appears Peter was part of a Christian group in Jerusalem that met in Mark’s home. When Peter miraculously escaped from jail (assisted by the angel of the Lord), he returned to this group to tell them the good news:Acts 12:12-14When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer the door. When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, “Peter is at the door!”
a) Peter would keep the Acts 1:3 resurrection appearances from Mark or
b) that Mark would know of them but choose to avoid mentioning them.
Mark's allegedly living in Jerusalem would make it reasonable to suspect that, if Acts 1:3 is telling the truth, Mark would both know about AND desire to mention these Jerusalem resurrection appearances.
Even if we allow everything desired by the minority of scholars who press for the authenticity of Mark's long ending, still, Mark's "long ending" doesn't mention anything about 40 days of resurrection appearances, still less anything about 40-days worth of kingdom-of-God teachings from the risen Christ, when we'd rather suspect that Mark would think the risen Christ's teachings about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3) were at least equally as important, if not more important, than the teachings on the same subject which Christ gave before dying (Mark 1-15).
Peter appears to have been well known to Mark, and over the course of time, Mark became even closer to Peter as he ministered throughout Asia Minor and Rome. By the time Peter wrote his first epistle, Mark had become like a son to him:1 Peter 5:13She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
Mark was a common name, you don't really know whether the author traditionally associated with the gospel is the exact "Mark" mentioned in that epistle. Critics can be reasonable to doubt this or call it inconclusive, whether you can conform the evidence to your own theory or not.
In fact, Mark’s relationship with Peter seems to parallel Luke’s relationship to Paul. Every time Paul mentions Luke, he also mentions Mark (see Colossians 4:10-14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon verse 24). Mark and Luke clearly knew each other, and this relationship as “co-Gospel authors” is consistent with Luke’s opening statement in the Gospel of Luke:Luke 1:1-4Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Except for one small problem: Most Christian scholars say Luke used Mark's gospel as a textual source to some degree, but Luke gives the false impression in his Preface that he relied ONLY on "eyewitness" testimony, because he doesn't mention any other source except eyewitnesses.
No, his preface does not express or imply that he had access to those who received the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Even if such fact could be shown from other evidence, all that matters is what impression Luke intended to give about his sources. We need not speculate why so many fundamentalist scholars continually talk about Luke interviewing "eyewitnesses".Luke clearly describes himself as a careful investigator rather than a firsthand eyewitness to the life of Jesus. He also said he had access to the eyewitnesses and those who received the testimony of these witnesses.
What you don't tell the reader is that other inerrantist Christian scholars discount the "consecutive order" or "chronological order" interpretation, in favor of one that says Luke was talking about writing in "logical" order:This would, of course, have included Mark, a man with whom he obviously had repeated contact (according to Paul’s letters). Luke curiously described his account as being written “in consecutive order,” a meaningful statement when you consider what Papias said about Mark’s Gospel:“Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord.”
To write an orderly account. The exact meaning of “orderly” is uncertain. It can refer to a temporal (Acts 3:24), geographical (18:23), or literary-logical sequence (11:4). The fact that Peter in 11:15 stated that the Spirit came upon Cornelius as he began to speak, whereas in 10:44–45 the Spirit came after Peter had spoken for some time, indicates that the “order” Luke was referring to was a logical rather than a chronological one.
Wallace continues:
Sorry, Luke's preface says nothing about his alleged used of secondary sources. And should you trifle that ancient historians might have viewed second-hand sources as having the same probative value as first-hand sources, your happiness about the "eyewitness" nature of the gospels must wane accordingly. Or else your continuing to evaluate the gospels via the modern American court system will make it clear how you prioritize marketing Jesus above the less attractive scholarly truth.In the opening lines of his Gospel, Luke appears to be acknowledging Mark as a source who had direct contact with the eyewitnesses, distinguishing his Gospel from Mark’s on the basis of its orderly format.
Which is precisely why Luke's admission to using "eyewitnesses" as sources is so problematic. If you got most of your story from second-hand sources, would you tell others that you relied on "eyewitnesses" and avoid mentioning you also used hearsay? Hopefully not.In addition, Luke quotes Mark more than any other source, repeating or quoting entire passages offered by Mark (350 verses from Mark appear in Luke’s gospel).
Not true. Mark 4:38 says:Luke recognized Mark’s relationship with Peter, much like his own with Paul, and considered Mark to be a reliable source.
38 Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, "Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?" (Mk. 4:38 NAU)When Luke found this in Mark, he changed the disciple's reaction so it was less accusatory than the original:
24 They came to Jesus and woke Him up, saying, "Master, Master, we are perishing!" And He got up and rebuked the wind and the surging waves, and they stopped, and it became calm. (Lk. 8:24 NAU)You say Luke found Mark a reliable source? Maybe that's why inerrantist Christian scholars admit Luke "toned down" Mark's apparently too-candid assertions:
The disciples’ question strongly rebukes Jesus and is another example of Mark’s candor, which Matt 8:25 and Luke 8:24 tone down.Wallace continues:
But on the basis of the counter-arguments I've given here, Mark's relationship to Peter would be moot even if all biblical descriptions of it were 100% accurate.On the basis of the relationship between Mark and Peter, it is reasonable to conclude the testimony of history accurately describes Mark’s connection to the Apostle. Mark acted as a scribe for Peter and recorded his teaching and preaching in his Gospel.
Finally, that Mark is a record of Peter's preaching is suspicious in light of the fact that none of the apostles in Acts give their audiences even one Christ-saying that appears in the gospels, a matter wholly at odds with the idea that the numerous Christ sayings in Mark show us the content of Peter's preaching.
The same is true for Paul. Despite the allegedly risen Christ saying the gospel to the Gentiles was the exact same thing he taught the original apostles (Matthew 28:20, the part of the Great Commission that most Christians forget), Paul clearly did not find the actual words of Jesus to be necessary to the gospel, contradicting the viewpoint on the subject held by all 4 gospel authors, who clearly think Jesus' actual words are an essential part of the Gentile gospel.
In conclusion, the hypothesis that Peter stated all of the things recorded in Mark's gospel, is absurd, and yet once it is granted that Mark used otherwise unknown sources beyond Peter, it becomes reasonable for critics to deny that Mark's gospel is "based" on "eyewitness" testimony.
If you were prosecuted for murder in court on the basis of an affidavit that had as many source and authorship problems as Mark's gospel does, suddenly, you'd find the bible-skeptic's skepticism to be reasonable, and you'd scream your head off that such a problematic document cannot enable a jury to reasonably decide who said what, or to decide the necessary credibility issues. You'd seek a court order declaring such affidavit inadmissible, and so do we.
Or you can keep fantasizing that evaluating the gospels with modern American court rules is a fun way to exploit religion for profit. Cool marketing gimmick? Yes. Convincing case? Not in the least.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Frank Turek's absurd belief in objective morality
Christian apologist Frank Turek increased his popularity with his "Stealing from God" book that he supports with book-tours in which he attempts to argue that morals are objective, so since this requires an objective moral law giver, and atheism provides none, the existence of objective morals necessarily implies the existence of God, hence, atheism is false.
Turek says, in an article entitled Atheists have no basis for morality:
For now, your question was illogically loaded. The only reason to ask an atheist for an objective basis for morality, is because that atheist thinks morality does indeed have an objective basis. Any such atheists are wrong. If atheism is true, morality does not have an objective basis (i.e., a basis that transcends humanity).
Also, the fact that most humans are social mammals logically requires that they find unacceptable any acts that inhibit the thriving and surviving of the members. Murder reduces the numbers of living things and deceases chances of thriving. Rape increases the likelihood of additional children that were not planned and thus strain the group's resources. Since no theory needs to be 100% perfect and explain every last little electron in the universe, the issue is not whether the naturalistic theory is comprehensive, but whether it is reasonable. It is. The naturalistic explanations for why most people find rape and murder to be immoral, are reasonable. Merely calling them 'opinion' does nothing to show the theory unreasonable. Some moist robots have an atomic configuration that motivates them to care about the survival of others.
On the other hand, the explanatory theory that says "God put his laws into our hearts" is beset by far worse shortcomings and fallacies:
What is the reason we cringe at the thought of burning teen prostitutes to death? Because the god who required this in other cultures (Lev. 21:9) has put his laws into our hearts? Or because the culture we are born and raised in can have a very profoundly strong impact in shaping our moral opinions?
Turek's explanation cannot point to any specific empirical evidence of a god putting his laws into our hearts, while the entire business smacks of telepathy and other foolishness that we know is bullshit. At the same time, the naturalistic theory can point to the lower animal world, those who Turek agrees are not made in the image of god, and we find that those calibrated to care about survival of the group, do indeed also find murder and rape unacceptable.
What standard is Turek using to form his belief that rape is objectively evil? It cannot be the bible or 'god', since Isaiah 13:16 would then have God causing men to rape women, that is, have God acting contrary to his own nature.
If you "subjectively wrong", then the wrongness of harming people does not go any further back than the human being who is calling it wrong, and perhaps the other human beings in the world who agree with him. But again, that doesn't establish that the moral opinion is objective.
Most humans are social animals who desire the company and fellowship of other humans. Since unrestrained murder and rape would clearly hamper the human's instinctive goal to both survive and thrive, it is instinctive for humans to view murder and rape as unacceptable behavior. You don't think the insects are made in the image of god, yet the social insects like wasps will attack you if you do thinks to disrupt their social goals, such as throwing dirt clods at wasp-nests. The same is true for most of the higher order mammals. Anything that inhibits their ability to survive or thrive as a group, is automatically deemed unacceptable and deserving of suppression.
You cannot avoid this rebuttal by doing what you do best, and pretending that an endless series of "but how do you know that?" will help you save face. Humans are instinctive social animals, so that is quite sufficient to explain why those who desire most to live in groups agree that things like rape and murder are unacceptable. Questions about how humans were created, etc, are another topic.
And God himself in Genesis 6:6-7 must have come to feel that his prior decision to create mankind was immoral, or else he wouldn't have "regretted" doing so. No, Turek, there is nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context or genre of Genesis 6 to suggest that this oassage is an "anthropomorphism", so it is reasonable to take it equally as literally as the other events in the context. In that case, your own God contradicts his own morals, since it was HE who created mankind, and HE who later discovered that said creative act was immoral. If God didn't think creating man was immoral, what does it mean to say God "regretted" making mankind? If you think your prior decision was morally good, could you ever "regret" it? No, not unless you start thinking that decision wasn't as good as you had first thought.
And Christians must be without god, because they are often dogmatic in their moral disagreements with one another:
What now, Turek? Do atheist bible critics have an intellectual obligation to study the convoluted tortured reasonings of Christianity's 500-year old in-house Calvinist-Arminian debate on the biblical extent of God's sovereignty (or the 1500 year old Augustinian/Pelagian debate), before they can be justified to draw conclusions here? If so, how long must the atheist study such debates before they can justifiably draw conclusions about it? 2 weeks? 20 years?
And don't forget, Turek: Calvinists are Christians who say the bible teaches that God secretly wills for us to violate his revealed will:
Then tell yourself that such sophistry does apply in the allegedly real-world situation of your guilt before god. Then tell yourself that the only people who are allowed to invoke the mysterious ways of God to get their asses out of a theological jam are Trinitarian bible-inerrancy-believing evangelical Protestants.
It is reasonable to expect that if the Christian god exists and has imposed 'objective' morals on humanity, he would not remain so silent and hidden from his own genuine seekers, as to facilitate such moral division among genuinely born-again Christians. One reasonable conclusion is that Christians who read the same basic bible and hold the same theological tenets always disagree about moral issues they find to be "important" because there is no objective moral law giver.
As far as the cosmological arguments, Turek has a serious problem: Genesis 1 and 2 would NEVER have caused its originally intended pre-scientific audience to think the "beginning" started with an explosion, as nothing therein is expressed or even implied. Nothing could be a more flagrant example of eisogesis than Truek reading modern science's big-bang theory into Genesis 1-2. He may as well read macro-evolution into it as well. Not only does the Big Bang contradict Genesis 1 and 2 (which set forth God's work as the result of a carpenter or artist), plenty of conservative bible-inerrancy-believing creationist Christians agree the BB is bullshit, such as Institute for Creation Research.
Now Turek cannot say it is the blinders of atheism and rebellion toward god that cause an atheist to be blind to the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2, unless he wishes to accuse his own born-again Christian brothers of being atheists.
Even astronomers who disagree with the infinite-space model agree it is at least possible, and that's a serious problem for the lemon-head apologists who want us to think an infinite universe model is "illogical" or otherwise not a valid option:
I end with a challenge to the stupid fundamentalists who believe hell's fire is more literal than symbolic, and who deny any possibility of second chances for those who die after knowingly rejecting the gospel:
Suppose you are the parent of a 10 year old girl who hasn't actually believed the gospel just yet, she simply goes through the motions like so many other kids. She is invited to a church that promotes whatever specific doctrinal bullshit you consider minimally necessary to true orthodoxy. She goes, they tell her the true gospel, they ask if she wants to repent, she says no, and on the way home, while having no personal faith in Christ, dies in a car accident. That is, she died immediately after knowingly refusing to obey the revealed gospel. God then shows you a vision of her being tormented by the flames of hell, and tells you this torture will go on for all eternity, because God thinks 10 years old is the age of accountability for that particular child.
Suppose every time you attend church thereafter and sing songs about God's eternal 'love', God puts this vision of your daughter's real, current, irreversible and eternal suffering into your mind. Your daughter is screaming in mindless agony in this torture-by-fire WHILE you are smiling and happily clapping your hands in church to songs about about the wonderfully comforting love of the God who is, at the same time, torturing your child.
Could you continue worshiping God in good conscience if you had that much precise information about the ultimate fate of a deceased child?
Or did you suddenly discover that the biggest problem in your life right now can be solved by suddenly discovering that the age of accountability is 37?
How to make all these problems disappear in one fell swoop? Become an open theist.
Turek says, in an article entitled Atheists have no basis for morality:
Monday night at UNC Wilmington, despite no cooperation from the school (see my last post), just over 200 people showed up for part 1 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.Maybe god is punishing you for misrepresenting him and mistaking your marketing bells and whistles for the wooing of the Holy Spirit. Just a thought.
Several atheists asked questions– actually made statements– and struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview.Then they were not very educated about matters of morality. You won't find the atheist writing at this blog to be struggling, to any degree, to answer your ridiculous questions and challenges.
For now, your question was illogically loaded. The only reason to ask an atheist for an objective basis for morality, is because that atheist thinks morality does indeed have an objective basis. Any such atheists are wrong. If atheism is true, morality does not have an objective basis (i.e., a basis that transcends humanity).
Also, the fact that most humans are social mammals logically requires that they find unacceptable any acts that inhibit the thriving and surviving of the members. Murder reduces the numbers of living things and deceases chances of thriving. Rape increases the likelihood of additional children that were not planned and thus strain the group's resources. Since no theory needs to be 100% perfect and explain every last little electron in the universe, the issue is not whether the naturalistic theory is comprehensive, but whether it is reasonable. It is. The naturalistic explanations for why most people find rape and murder to be immoral, are reasonable. Merely calling them 'opinion' does nothing to show the theory unreasonable. Some moist robots have an atomic configuration that motivates them to care about the survival of others.
On the other hand, the explanatory theory that says "God put his laws into our hearts" is beset by far worse shortcomings and fallacies:
What is the reason we cringe at the thought of burning teen prostitutes to death? Because the god who required this in other cultures (Lev. 21:9) has put his laws into our hearts? Or because the culture we are born and raised in can have a very profoundly strong impact in shaping our moral opinions?
Turek's explanation cannot point to any specific empirical evidence of a god putting his laws into our hearts, while the entire business smacks of telepathy and other foolishness that we know is bullshit. At the same time, the naturalistic theory can point to the lower animal world, those who Turek agrees are not made in the image of god, and we find that those calibrated to care about survival of the group, do indeed also find murder and rape unacceptable.
What standard is Turek using to form his belief that rape is objectively evil? It cannot be the bible or 'god', since Isaiah 13:16 would then have God causing men to rape women, that is, have God acting contrary to his own nature.
They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral.That's easy. Try the Constitutions and Laws of the country you were born in. They reflect the moral outlook of the majority of the people.
One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God?If you mean "objectively wrong", then harming people isn't wrong, because there is no objective standard governing the question of which human activities constitute immoral harm. Furthermore, "harm" is subjective and requires analysis of context. Doctors cause harm all the time, but most of us say this is justifiable because the harm creates a greater future good. So it is the same in other areas of life.
If you "subjectively wrong", then the wrongness of harming people does not go any further back than the human being who is calling it wrong, and perhaps the other human beings in the world who agree with him. But again, that doesn't establish that the moral opinion is objective.
Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. (After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down.)Thus indicating that these atheists were woefully uneducated about the matters to justify pontificating about them as they tried.
This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question.Incorrect, you appear to have been addressing absolute dolts. The reason you find a lot of people agreeing with you that morals have an objective basis that transcends humanity is because the vast majority of people have never taken an introductory course in moral philosophy. You are dishonestly trading on their strong personal views and their ignorance. Your problem is that the naturalistic explanation for most humans in history agreeing certain acts are immoral, reasonably accounts for all the empirical data, at which point, there is no compelling "need" to invoke god to explain it.
Most humans are social animals who desire the company and fellowship of other humans. Since unrestrained murder and rape would clearly hamper the human's instinctive goal to both survive and thrive, it is instinctive for humans to view murder and rape as unacceptable behavior. You don't think the insects are made in the image of god, yet the social insects like wasps will attack you if you do thinks to disrupt their social goals, such as throwing dirt clods at wasp-nests. The same is true for most of the higher order mammals. Anything that inhibits their ability to survive or thrive as a group, is automatically deemed unacceptable and deserving of suppression.
You cannot avoid this rebuttal by doing what you do best, and pretending that an endless series of "but how do you know that?" will help you save face. Humans are instinctive social animals, so that is quite sufficient to explain why those who desire most to live in groups agree that things like rape and murder are unacceptable. Questions about how humans were created, etc, are another topic.
Without God there is no basis for objective morals.Correct. That doesn't mean subjective morals cannot exist. There is no proving to another person that the subjective morals of modern-day America are "better". All we can say is that if you act contrary to those morals, you will be put in jail or killed.
And God himself in Genesis 6:6-7 must have come to feel that his prior decision to create mankind was immoral, or else he wouldn't have "regretted" doing so. No, Turek, there is nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context or genre of Genesis 6 to suggest that this oassage is an "anthropomorphism", so it is reasonable to take it equally as literally as the other events in the context. In that case, your own God contradicts his own morals, since it was HE who created mankind, and HE who later discovered that said creative act was immoral. If God didn't think creating man was immoral, what does it mean to say God "regretted" making mankind? If you think your prior decision was morally good, could you ever "regret" it? No, not unless you start thinking that decision wasn't as good as you had first thought.
And Christians must be without god, because they are often dogmatic in their moral disagreements with one another:
- Does the Christian god think it morally good for a Christian adult to join a worldly military? How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question? 2 weeks? 20 years?
- Does the Christian god think it morally good for voluntary abortion to end a pregnancy caused by rape? How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question? 2 weeks? 20 years?
- Does the Christian god think it morally god for married Christian couples to use condoms? How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question? 2 weeks? 20 years?
- Is corporal punishment of kids morally good? How do you know what level of non-lethal pain is the maximum that objective goodness will allow? Why would Proverbs 22:15 and other passages require striking kids with a "rod", if the level of force it is talking about would not produce any more pain or injury than what could be produced by the "tap" of an open hand that so many Christians think is the limit? Proverbs 20:30 has only good things to say about beatings that produce bruises, and contrary to popular belief, "immediate context" does not always prevail when dealing with Proverbs. While some commentators try to get away from a moral nightmare by pretending that the "immediate context" of Proverbs 20:30 restricts that passage to mere judicial beatings of adults in criminal courts:
20:30 In context this is not parental discipline but beatings administered by the king’s officers as punishment for crime. Yahweh can peer directly into a person’s innermost being (v. 27), but the king can touch the criminal’s soul by harsh retribution.Other equally Christian scholars maintain that the way different Proverbs about different matters are often strung together, you cannot limit what one of them is talking about by appeal to "immediate context":
With the book of Proverbs one can select at random a single verse or two and observe a complete unity of thought in them that may not have any real connection with what precedes or follows. Yet this does not hinder interpretation of its meaning
Ardel B. Caneday, Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist Or Godly Sage?,
GTJ—V7-#1—Spr 86—31
- And if Proverbs 20:30 is extolling the goodness of the criminal receiving bruises and welts from the corporal punishment inflicted by a court....do you agree that human courts achieve objective moral good by physically beating convicted criminals, yes or no? Or did you suddenly discover that god's objective biblical morals don't apply if the culture in question is too different from the biblical culture? Sound like cultural relativism to me.
- How do you know that vigilante justice is objectively immoral, given that Peter in Acts 5:29 appears to have found an exception to Romans 13? If there are pacifist exceptions to Romans 13 wherein you can safely disregard worldly law, then how do you know that pacifist exceptions are the only types that exist? How do you know where to draw the line? What makes you so sure that God doesn't wish to act through you personally to murder the convicted and self-confessed pedophile living locally in your neighborhood? Before you answer, ask how many tears you'd shed if you found that this man was found gunned down in a ditch earlier this morning. You won't exactly be clearing your schedule just to make time to attend his funeral, amen? And your own bible requires that the person who murdered the pedophile was doing the will of God regardless of how the death was actually achieved (Deut. 32:39, Job 14:5).
- Is it morally good to torture babies to death? If not, then you must think your god once violated his own objective morals in torturing to death the baby born to King David and Bathsheba:
13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.The baby obviously wasn't "deserving" of this torture, and yet v. 18 indicates the torture lasted for seven days. Oh, did I forget? This doesn't even qualify as the child being punished for the sins of the father. Before the child was stuck by God, Nathan the prophet said God had "taken away" David's sins (v. 13). God's torture of the baby cannot be considered "punishment" in any way, since the "taking away" obviously operated to exempt David himself from the death penalty required for adultery and murder.
14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:13-18 NAU)
- If God really is the author of all murder and death (Deut. 32:39) and has set a specific number of days for each human to live, a number they cannot increase or decrease (Job 14:5), then how can you say murder is immoral? If a man pulls out a gun and shoots the Christian bank teller dead, this is also God calling that bank teller home...it is not limited to the earthly perspective of "murder". if those bible passages are true, you are calling God's own actions objectively immoral when you call murder immoral. How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question? 2 weeks? 20 years?
- Does god approve of a legislature taking the death penalty, usually applicable only to murder, and extending it to other crimes such as child rape? Not a few people were angered when a man who nearly fatally raped his daughter, escaped Louisiana's death penalty for that crime when the US Supreme Court found such law to be cruel and unusual.
- Does God think it is moral or immoral that America's courts have a general rule generally excluding hearsay? The fact that most of the bible is in hearsay form and allegedly comes from God, requires that the answer is "immoral". Yet if Christians were to start a movement to overturn the court rule banning hearsay, it would likely trigger a legal war that would produce various degrees of harmful collateral damage, such as wronged Plaintiffs preferring to take the law into their own hands instead of having the matter adjudicated in a court that foolishly allows hearsay.
- If rape is objectively immoral, why does God claim responsibility for causing men to rape women in Isaiah 13:16? Even conservative Christian commentators admit God was "taking responsibility" for these and other atrocities in the immediate context, such as beating children to death:
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU)
17–18 As the macabre scene resulting from the cosmic quake passes, the finger points to historical movement. Yahweh calls attention to stirrings among the feared Medes for which He claims responsibility.
What now, Turek? Do atheist bible critics have an intellectual obligation to study the convoluted tortured reasonings of Christianity's 500-year old in-house Calvinist-Arminian debate on the biblical extent of God's sovereignty (or the 1500 year old Augustinian/Pelagian debate), before they can be justified to draw conclusions here? If so, how long must the atheist study such debates before they can justifiably draw conclusions about it? 2 weeks? 20 years?
And don't forget, Turek: Calvinists are Christians who say the bible teaches that God secretly wills for us to violate his revealed will:
If someone disobeys God's revealed will, that's because God "secretly" willed them to disobey his revealed will. (Steve Hays, from Triablogue)
- When we jaywalk, would it be objectively morally good to consider this sufficient to prove us guilty of murder? Before you balk at the stupidity of such a suggestion, read James 2:10-11 for the first time in your life, and ask yourself how feverishly stupid it would be to try and make such careless sophistry apply in real-world situations:
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas. 2:10-11 NAU)
Then tell yourself that such sophistry does apply in the allegedly real-world situation of your guilt before god. Then tell yourself that the only people who are allowed to invoke the mysterious ways of God to get their asses out of a theological jam are Trinitarian bible-inerrancy-believing evangelical Protestants.
It is reasonable to expect that if the Christian god exists and has imposed 'objective' morals on humanity, he would not remain so silent and hidden from his own genuine seekers, as to facilitate such moral division among genuinely born-again Christians. One reasonable conclusion is that Christians who read the same basic bible and hold the same theological tenets always disagree about moral issues they find to be "important" because there is no objective moral law giver.
It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.That's exactly right. Most citizens of most countries are civilized and have common sense. Nation would not likely rise against nation in war if knowing which morals come from God was the pre-skool matter that Turek pretends it to be.
The atheists’ responses to the cosmological and design arguments– the arguments that show us that the universe exploded into being out of nothing and did so with amazing design and precision– were “we don’t know how that happened.”Once again, you capitalize unfairly on ignorant atheists. That would be like the atheist concluding Christianity is false because of all the stupidity he can find in a KJV Only Pentecostal church that allows its members to play with live rattlesnakes. Stop pretending that defeating an ignorant atheist means defeating atheism. It is illogical.
As far as the cosmological arguments, Turek has a serious problem: Genesis 1 and 2 would NEVER have caused its originally intended pre-scientific audience to think the "beginning" started with an explosion, as nothing therein is expressed or even implied. Nothing could be a more flagrant example of eisogesis than Truek reading modern science's big-bang theory into Genesis 1-2. He may as well read macro-evolution into it as well. Not only does the Big Bang contradict Genesis 1 and 2 (which set forth God's work as the result of a carpenter or artist), plenty of conservative bible-inerrancy-believing creationist Christians agree the BB is bullshit, such as Institute for Creation Research.
Now Turek cannot say it is the blinders of atheism and rebellion toward god that cause an atheist to be blind to the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2, unless he wishes to accuse his own born-again Christian brothers of being atheists.
This is simply an evasion of the evidence that clearly points to an eternal, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal and moral First Cause of the universe. Since nature itself was created, this Cause must be beyond nature or “supernatural.”Sorry, the arguments for the universe being created, are unpersuasive to say the least, while the evidence that the field of planets and stars extends infinitely in all directions is rather clear from the fact that astronomers continue increasing their estimate of the number of stars with each passing decade: "There are a dizzying 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, up to 20 times more than previously thought, astronomers reported on Thursday."
Even astronomers who disagree with the infinite-space model agree it is at least possible, and that's a serious problem for the lemon-head apologists who want us to think an infinite universe model is "illogical" or otherwise not a valid option:
GREENFIELDBOYCE: So it goes on, but is it infinite? Chuck Bennett is an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University.
CHUCK BENNETT: It is somewhat unimaginable, but quite possible that our universe simply goes on forever.The issue is not which cosmological theory is "true", that is a child's approach. The issue is whether theories of the universe that make it harder for you to "prove god" can be reasonable. They can. It isn't like the infinite universe model is on the order of flat-earth or ancient astronauts.
I end with a challenge to the stupid fundamentalists who believe hell's fire is more literal than symbolic, and who deny any possibility of second chances for those who die after knowingly rejecting the gospel:
Suppose you are the parent of a 10 year old girl who hasn't actually believed the gospel just yet, she simply goes through the motions like so many other kids. She is invited to a church that promotes whatever specific doctrinal bullshit you consider minimally necessary to true orthodoxy. She goes, they tell her the true gospel, they ask if she wants to repent, she says no, and on the way home, while having no personal faith in Christ, dies in a car accident. That is, she died immediately after knowingly refusing to obey the revealed gospel. God then shows you a vision of her being tormented by the flames of hell, and tells you this torture will go on for all eternity, because God thinks 10 years old is the age of accountability for that particular child.
Suppose every time you attend church thereafter and sing songs about God's eternal 'love', God puts this vision of your daughter's real, current, irreversible and eternal suffering into your mind. Your daughter is screaming in mindless agony in this torture-by-fire WHILE you are smiling and happily clapping your hands in church to songs about about the wonderfully comforting love of the God who is, at the same time, torturing your child.
Could you continue worshiping God in good conscience if you had that much precise information about the ultimate fate of a deceased child?
Or did you suddenly discover that the biggest problem in your life right now can be solved by suddenly discovering that the age of accountability is 37?
How to make all these problems disappear in one fell swoop? Become an open theist.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Cold Case Christianity: The astronomical errors of Job and Judges
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
And we worry about the bible being consistent with science about as much as we worry about ancient Greeks being consistent with science.In the past, I’ve posted a number of scientific consistencies found in the Old Testament.
No dice: God could have been far more explicit in having bible authors predict today's events. Like your typical spiritist, god's "predictions" of the future are often conveniently vague enough that it is exceptionally difficult or impossible to decide what they are talking about..while the more explicit predictions are either dated after the fulfilling event, or turned out simply to be wrong.While I think there are good reasons why God might not reveal advanced scientific details in Scripture,
That's because you've chosen a model of bible inerrancy that other Christian scholars have rejected:I do expect God’s Word to be scientifically consistent with the world we experience.
In The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority, (IVP Academic, 2013), John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy argue that the Israelites literally believed in unscientific concepts:
Even though people in Israel believed there were waters above the earth held back by a solid sky, or that cognitive processes took place in the heart or kidneys, the illocution of the texts is not affirming those beliefs as revealed truth...So for example, it is no surprise that ancient Israel believed in a solid sky, and God accommodated his locution to that model in his communication to them. But since the illocution is not to assert the true shape of cosmic geography, we can safely set those details aside as incidental without jeopardizing authority of inerrancy." (p. 45-46)Wallace continues:
The fact that it says the "sweet" influences ought to indicate it isn't talking about truths of physics. Unless you think gravitational attraction of stars is something that tastes like sugar? Furthermore:One interesting scientific consistency seems to exist in the ancient book of Job. I am obviously not a scientist or astronomer, so I’ll try to provide links to the references you might use to further investigate these claims. As you may remember, Job was extremely wealthy and had a large family. Tragedy struck and Job lost his wealth, his children and his wife. Job eventually began to accuse God of being unjust and unkind. In response to Job’s complaining, God challenged Job’s authority and power relative to His own. God asked the following series of questions to demonstrate Job’s comparative weakness:Job 38:31-32Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? Or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?The text refers to three constellations, Pleiades, Orion and Arcturus (the fourth, Mazzaroth, is still unknown to us). In the first part of the verse, God challenged Job’s ability to “bind the sweet influences of Pleiades.” It’s as if He was saying, “Hey Job, you think you can keep Pleiades together? Well, I can!” As it turns out, the Pleiades (also known as the Seven Sisters) is an open star cluster in the constellation of Taurus. It is classified as an open cluster because it is a group of hundreds of stars formed from the same cosmic cloud. They are approximately the same age and have roughly the same chemical composition. Most importantly, they are bound to one another by mutual gravitational attraction. Isabel Lewis of the United States Naval Observatory (quoted by Phillip L. Knox in Wonder Worlds) said, “Astronomers have identified 250 stars as actual members of this group, all sharing in a common motion and drifting through space in the same direction.” Lewis said they are “journeying onward together through the immensity of space.” Dr. Robert J. Trumpler (quoted in the same book) said, “Over 25,000 individual measures of the Pleiades stars are now available, and their study led to the important discovery that the whole cluster is moving in a southeasterly direction. The Pleiades stars may thus be compared to a swarm of birds, flying together to a distant goal. This leaves no doubt that the Pleiades are not a temporary or accidental agglomeration of stars, but a system in which the stars are bound together by a close kinship.” From our perspective on Earth, the Pleiades will not change in appearance; these stars are marching together in formation toward the same destination, bound in unison, just as God described them.
31 "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?
32 "Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites?
33 "Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth? (Job 38:31-33 NAU)
Did other cultures also see constellations in the sky?
Nearly every culture on Earth has seen patterns in the stars.
Job clearly errs by saying Pleiades, Orion, and the Bear "rule over the earth" (33). No astronomer believes this.
Job has other problems:
2 "In truth I know that this is so; But how can a man be in the right before God?Job apparently thinks earthquakes are caused by God (6) when today we know better.
3 "If one wished to dispute with Him, He could not answer Him once in a thousand times.
4 "Wise in heart and mighty in strength, Who has defied Him without harm?
5 "It is God who removes the mountains, they know not how, When He overturns them in His anger;
6 Who shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble;
7 Who commands the sun not to shine, And sets a seal upon the stars;
8 Who alone stretches out the heavens And tramples down the waves of the sea;
9 Who makes the Bear, Orion and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south;
10 Who does great things, unfathomable, And wondrous works without number.
11 "Were He to pass by me, I would not see Him; Were He to move past me, I would not perceive Him. (Job 9:2-11 NAU)
Job thinks night comes around because God commands the sun to stop shining (7). If you can get away from Job's scientific errors by screaming "poetry", why would you insist that the part of the poetry you quote is an exception?
And Job apparently thought the stars really were angels or "sons of God":
7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7 NAU)
The Institute for Creation Research wonders at the bible's frequent identification of stars with angels:
The frequent identification of angels with stars in the Bible (note Job 38:7; Revelation 12:4; and many others) is most intriguing, especially in view of the fact that there is no similarity between them whatsoever.Wallace continues:
Once again, the ancient Greeks were not inspired by God, but they obviously knew that certain stars cluster together. And Job 38:31 doesn't say God will ever loose the belt of Orion.The next section of the verse describes the Orion constellation. God once again challenged Job, this time to “loose the bands of Orion.” God was referencing the “belt” of Orion; the three stars forming the linear “band” at Orion’s waist. God appeared to be challenging Job in just the opposite way he had in the first portion of the verse. Rather than bind the Pleiades, God challenged Job to loosen Orion. It’s as if He was saying, “Hey Job, you think you can loosen Orion’s belt? Well, I can!” Orion’s belt is formed by two stars (Alnilam, and Mintaka) and one star cluster (Alnitak). Alnitak is actually a triple star system at the eastern edge of Orion’s belt. These stars (along with all the other stars forming Orion) are not gravitationally bound like those in Pleiades. Instead, the stars of Orion’s belt are heading in different directions. Garrett P. Serviss, a noted astronomer, wrote about the bands of Orion in his book, Curiosities of the Sky: “The great figure of Orion appears to be more lasting, not because its stars are physically connected, but because of their great distance, which renders their movements too deliberate to be exactly ascertained. Two of the greatest of its stars, Betelgeuse and Rigel, possess, as far as has been ascertained, no perceptible motion across the line of sight, but there is a little movement perceptible in the ‘Belt.’ At the present time this consists of an almost perfect straight line, a row of second-magnitude stars about equally spaced and of the most striking beauty. In the course of time, however, the two right-hand stars, Mintaka and Alnilam (how fine are these Arabic star names!) will approach each other and form a naked-eye double, but the third, Alnita, will drift away eastward, so that the ‘Belt’ will no longer exist.” Unlike the Pleaides clusters, the stars in the band of Orion do not share a common trajectory. In the course of time, Orion’s belt will be loosened just as God told Job.
You obviously aren't writing to convince skeptics. Of that we can be sure.In the last section of the verse, God described Arcturus, one of the brightest stars in the night sky. God challenged Job to “guide Arcturus with his sons.” With this challenge, God appeared to be saying, “Hey Job, you think you can direct Arcturus anywhere you want? Well, I can!” While Arcturus certainly appeared in antiquity to be a single star, in 1971 astronomers discovered there were 52 additional stars connected directionally with Arcturus (known now as the Arcturus stream). Interestingly, God described Arcturus as having “sons” and Charles Burckhalter, of the Chabot Observatory, (again quoted in Wonder Worlds) said “these stars are a law unto themselves.” Serviss added, “Arcturus is one of the greatest suns in the universe, is a runaway whose speed of flight is 257 miles per second. Arcturus, we have every reason to believe, possesses thousands of times the mass of our sun… Our sun is traveling only 12 ½ miles a second, but Arcturus is traveling 257 miles a second…” Burckhalter affirmed this description of Arcturus, saying, “This high velocity places Arcturus in that very small class of stars that apparently are a law unto themselves. He is an outsider, a visitor, a stranger within the gates; to speak plainly, Arcturus is a runaway. Newton gives the velocity of a star under control as not more than 25 miles a second, and Arcturus is going 257 miles a second. Therefore, combined attraction of all the stars we know cannot stop him or even turn him in his path.” Arcturus and “his sons” are on a course all their own. Only God has the power to guide them, just as described in the ancient book of Job.I doubt it was God’s intention to teach Job astronomy in this passage. Instead, God wanted to challenge Job and remind him who had the power, authority and wisdom to control the fate of the universe.
Not by a long shot. Earlier parts of the bible even allege that the "stars" fought for an earthly army:In a similar way, God wanted to remind Job who had the power to control Job’s fate and the wisdom to care for him, even when Job felt unloved. While it wasn’t God’s purpose to reveal hidden scientific truths to Job in an effort to demonstrate His Deity, the ancient text accurately describes the nature of these constellations and stars. Like other Old and New Testament passages, it is scientifically consistent, even if not scientifically exhaustive.
19 "The kings came and fought; Then fought the kings of Canaan At Taanach near the waters of Megiddo; They took no plunder in silver.The phrase 'from their courses' makes it clear that the author is not merely recharacterizing angels as stars. In normal speech, nobody says angels have "courses", but stars certainly would have been viewed by ancient man as having "courses".
20 "The stars fought from heaven, From their courses they fought against Sisera.
21 "The torrent of Kishon swept them away, The ancient torrent, the torrent Kishon. O my soul, march on with strength.
22 "Then the horses' hoofs beat From the dashing, the dashing of his valiant steeds. (Jdg. 5:19-22 NAU)
Inerrantist Christian scholars admit, perhaps reluctantly, that yes, this is talking about the literal stars leaving their normal orbits in order to cause a flood on earth...a concept whose foolishness is apparent to everybody else:
5:20–21 Undoubtedly Sisera expected a swift and easy victory for his vastly superior military forces. There was no way he could have prepared for what actually happened: the intervention of heavenly forces on Israel’s behalf, the sudden flooding of the Kishon, and the crippling of the chariotry.418 The first phenomenon is described in magnificently enigmatic form: the stars left their courses419 and fought against Sisera from heaven.
-----footnote 419 Most interpret מִמְּסִלּוֹתָם, “from their courses,” to mean that the stars functioned like an army, each in its place, but it is preferable to see here the heavenly bodies leaving their normal orbits to fight against Israel’s enemy. Weinfeld (“Divine Intervention,” 127) suggests “a comet fell out of its fixed place.” J. F. A. Sawyer (“From Heaven Fought the Stars,” VT 1 [1981]: 87–89) sees here a reference to the total eclipse of the sun in the vicinity of Megiddo and Taanach in 1131 b.c., in which case at least the nucleus of the song is to be dated early, its composer being an eyewitness of the eclipse.
(There was an ancient belief that the stars were the source of the rain.)
Auld, A. G. (2001, c1984). Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.
The Daily study Bible series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
The Daily study Bible series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
I think Wallace is getting just a little too happy about his errant conclusions regarding the bible's alleged scientific accuracy. The model of Gentile evangelism and apologetics in the bible neither expresses nor implies that Christians have a duty to prove the accuracy of the scriptures to any doubters. To stick with just the biblical model, is to leave oneself no compelling reason to defend the scientific accuracy of the bible.
On the other hand, seeking to defend the scientific accuracy of the bible does indeed imply that the apologist doesn't have too much faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to make unbelievers believe whatever he wants them to (Ezra 1:1), especially if the apologist pays more attention to marketing his own bells and whistles than he pays to doing things the way the bible says they should be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My reply to Bellator Christi's "Three Dangerous Forms of Modern Idolatry"
I received this in my email, but the page it was hosted on appears to have been removed ===================== Bellator Christi Read on blo...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue. See here . He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs. I posted t...
-
https://twitter.com/barry35962347 #lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding
